The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

MARINE REVIEW. Za 2 Am L\ it) Any = a => IN AD Ais 1a a EPY 222 fee UY ee oe Be if | 7 a = vee Hee P| AA \ 3 SE TR pr ae ae = DUTY OF SAILING VESSELS. The following important statement of the respective legal duties of steam vessels and sailing vessels in avoiding collisions is gathered from the able opinion lately delivered by Judge Swan, in deciding the collision case of the steamer Iron Chief and schooner J. F. Card. It appears that about 9 o'clock in the evening of July 24, 1891, the weather being clear and the wind fresh from the northwest, the schooner J. F. Card, bound down, collided with the steamer Iron Chief and tow, bound up, near the upper end of the narrow channel above Round island, at the junction of the St. Mary's river and Waiska bay. The Card had sailed down Lake Superior and upon reaching Waiska bay al- though the wind was fair she did not at once attempt to sail down the river and made several stretches across the bay. When the steamer and tow rounded Point Aux Pins the schooner was well down into the bight of the bay and standing across towards the upper end of the narrow channel above Round island. Those in charge of the steamer took no precautions to avoid the schooner at this time because, as they claim, they thought the schooner was bound up the lake, the indication being that she had been lying at anchor over in the bay, or else that a tug had let go of her there and that she was working her way out. Moreover she had crossed without entering the upper entrance to the southerly channel, usually taken by sailing vessels bound down. After the Iron Chief had entered the narrow channel she checked down and waited for the Card to either pass the upper entrance of the channel*or to come in stays. When close to the black stake at the upper end of the channel, the schooner sud- denly begun to pay off and turned as though to come down the channel, and from her maneuvers she evidently intended, and the court finds that it was her actual intention, to pass the Iron Chief port to port in such a channel. The Iron Chief at once blew a signal of one blast and worked over close to the red stake channel bank. After the schooner had commenced swing- ing as above, her helm was suddenly put down and an attempt was made to luff her up. In thisattempt she failed and ran into the port side of the Iron Chief and then glancing off she passed under the stern of the steamer and ran into the consort of the steamer, the consort being grounded on the north bank of the channel. The principal fault which was charged against the steamer was that under the circumstances she was bound to keep out of the schooner's way. Judge Swan says that "while the law requires a steam vessel meeting a sailing vessel to keep out of the latter's way, it is equally positive that the sailing vessel shall hold her course. The obligation of the steam vessel to perform its duty under this rule is not absolute and unqualified but is dependent upon the adherance of the sailing vessel to her course. Were it otherwise the occurrence of the collision would be decisive of the lability of the steamer." 'he court then finds that as a matter of fact the actual and intended course of the schooner was to pass the steamer port to port; and further finds that had she continued swinging as she started to swing she could have left the steamer and tow to port. And he finds that the collision is chargeable solely to the schooner's change of course in that her helm was changed and an attempt made to luff her and that this is so whether her ceasing to swing was due to improper handling, or to the inability of the schooner to make the course which she attempted to do; and the court further finds that the schooner is blamable for needlessly attempting a course which invited risk of collision. Of the management of the steamer Judge Swan says that "it is clear from these proofs that the master of the Iron Chief correctly divined the intended course of the schooner down the channel, and his judgment was confirmed as the vessels neared each other, until the schooner stopped swinging before she reached mid-channel, where she was heading on to the steamer atan angle of four points; he steamer was then as far to the northerly side of the channel as she could safely get. It is claimed that she should have stopped Stopping would have only precipitated the collision, which had then become evident, unless the schooner paid off. In that situation the steamer was not bound to stop. The only possi- bility of avoiding the collision lay in her going ahead at full speed and thus clear the schooner." 'The court concluded that the collision was not caused by any fault of the Iron Chief and the libel was dismissed with costs. SHERMAN---OLYMPIA CASE. Another case decided by Judge Swan at Detroit this week is of value, as it limits the blame of collisions where it occurs through unforeseen and unavoidable circumstances. Owners and insurers of the schooner John Sherman sought to recover the loss of that vessel sunk just below Walkerville in the De- troit river, May 8, 1891, by collision with the steamer Olympia. The Sherman was lumber-laden, bonnd down in tow of the Lowell, the Roberts being in the tow behind the Sherman. 'The Olympia was coal laden and bound up, having gone toward the American side at Detroit to pick up the marine reporter. To put her on her course her wheel was ported, until Belle isle was on her port bow. She was not quite abreast of the Lowell at that time and she was heading just under the stern of the Roberts. To preserve this course and check her swing the wheel was starboarded, but it failed to have the desired effect, seeing which the master ordered it hard-a-starboard. _In obey- ing this order the tiller rope slackened on the barrel, indicating that it had broken. 'Ihe master at once signalled the engineer to stop and back, which was promptly done. He instantly fol- lowed those orders by sounding three or four alarm whistles to the Lowell and her tow, three or four lengths away. The ef- fect in reversing the Olympia's engines was to swing her stern to port and bow to starboard and her headway was such that al- though the engines were working astern she was carried across the current, until stern on she struck the Sherman, cutting into her four or, five feet, springing her deck and throwing her masts out of line. 'The Sherman's wheel was starboarded as soon as the Olympia whistled the alarm, but owing to her position in the tow she could not get out of the way. The libel claimed the Olympia did not keep her course and did not promptly stop. The answer charged that the Sherman was weak and unsea- worthy and that the effect of the collision was due in large part to that fact. Judge Swan said: "The proofs aquit the Sherman and Olympia of the omission of any measure which would have averted the collision after the breaking of the wheel rope. The primary inquiry is whether its cause was any defect in the equip- ment of the Olympia against which due care and skill could have provided." He concludes there was not, andadds: "It is not enough to exempt a vessel from the consequences of injury to life and property traceable to the sudden collapse of the guid- ing power, that the material was originally of the best quality and that closest attention be paid to their preservation. The same considerations which exact from a vessel propelled by steam the utmost care in navigation because of her speed and power more forcibly require that the machinery for keeping her course shall be equal to that end, so far as reasonable care and skill can make and maintain it. There isa seeming hardship in leaving an injured party innocent of fault to bear the conse- quences of a misfortune without redress against the person of thing causing the loss. Yet the imposition of liability for any part of the loss upon one not culpable would not only be a judi- cial wrong but its effects would be disastrous to the safety of life and property, by removing a strong incentive to the exer- cise of care and skill in the conduct of every occupation and business. 'I'he loss must rest where it has fallen and the libel must be dismissed. The circumstances justified the filing of the libel,as only judicial inquiry could have elicited the evidence. If it had appeared that an equally full showing of the proofs in the Olympia's defense had been made prior to the filing of the libel I should have followed the American rule and allowed costs to claimants, but under the circumstances no costs will be allowed."' The case of the 5. B. Pomeroy against the Canadian pro- peller Pacific for injuries received by collision in the Sault river two years ago was dismissed on account of contradictory testi-- mony and the slight injuries received by the Pomeroy. J udge Swan depended in part on the weather report for that day for not holding the steamer liable. Henry R. Worthington, one of the largest manufacturers of steam pumps in the United States, has opened a branch office at 1762 Larimer street, Denver, Col. A full line of pumps, water motors and repair parts will be carried in stock. The establish- ment of a branch office was made necessary by the increasing business in the west. pet